On March 11, Lockyer said he and a team of lawyers arrived at the offices of Enron's utility
subsidiary in Portland, Ore. Lockyer
expected to find subpoenaed documents related to Enron's California electricity sales.

A California judge will rule next week on whether Enron should be held in contempt for its
action, he said.

From the 940 boxes, "we got one piece of paper, one document, in response to our subpoena,"
Lockyer said.

Enron has incensed California politicians by ignoring a subpoena and failing to appear last
month at a state Senate panel hearing ondocument destruction. Lockyer won a court order in
January requiring Enron to preserve all paper and electronic documents subpoenaed
by state officials.

Answers

O'REILLY: All right. Yeah, anybody can. All right, you concluded in
your report
that the Clintons benefited from criminal activity.
How did they do that?

RAY: There was investment in Whitewater. And they
were business partners
with the McDougals in Madison Guaranty. And the
McDdougals clearly, and
others, engaged in illegal activity, fraud, and were
found guilty or pleaded
guilty in connection with those activities.

The McDougals were found guilty, others pleaded
guilty. The result of that
criminal conduct was to the benefit of a failing
institution. And as a result of
that, because the Clintons were business partners
with the McDougals, they,
in connection with matters that involved a joint
activity, obviously benefited
from that course of conduct.

O'REILLY: So they benefited by getting money?

RAY: Yes.

O'REILLY: So Hillary Clinton worked for the Madison
Guaranty, before it
folded. She was paid by that bank. Is that what you
mean, they benefited?

RAY: Well, benefited, it means in a financial sense,
sure. The question,
though, for a prosecutor to decide was the very
narrow one. And that is, yes,
we were able to uncover and did uncover criminal
wrongdoing. Others
committed criminal wrongdoing. The question to be
decided and the reason
an independent counsel was appointed in the first
instance -- remember,
now, this is the first investigation, the first
mandate...

O'REILLY: Right.

RAY: ...that caused -- it created the independent
counsel's office.

O'REILLY: Right.

RAY: And the Attorney General Reno...

O'REILLY: But I'm still unclear in the sense that
they benefited. The Clintons
benefited. That means they got money.

RAY: Yes.

O'REILLY: How much?

RAY: Well, I mean, that's really not the issue.

O'REILLY: It's an issue for me. I want to know how
much money they took out
of a bank that failed and the taxpayer, you and me
and everybody else, lost
$300,000, which isn't a lot in the scheme of things.
But how much did the
Clintons make from the bank that failed?

RAY: Well, the bank that failed cost the taxpayers
ultimately the bailout was in
excess of $70 million.

O'REILLY: $70 million?

RAY: Now that wasn't to the benefit of the Clintons
personally. But the more
important point with regard to it for a prosecutor
was to make a determination
about whether or not the Clintons were aware of the
criminal conduct that
was ongoing.

O'REILLY: And you say they were aware of it?

RAY: Well, no, what I said was is that unless we were
able to show beyond a
reasonable doubt, that they knowingly engaged in
conduct in an effort to
conceal wrongful activity...

O'REILLY: Right.

RAY: That was not sufficient to sustain criminal
charges.

O'REILLY: I understand that. But you're saying that
$70 million of taxpayer
money went down the drain because of this fraudulent
Whitewater land deal
linked to the Madison Guaranty Bank, which failed,
$70 million?

RAY: And in the context of the 1980s, this was not an
uncommon occurrence.

O'REILLY: Fine. A lot of savings and loans went down.
I want to know how
much money the Clintons took out for themselves from
this fiasco. Can you
tell me? Can you put a dollar sign on it?

RAY: I think it's difficult to do that.

O'REILLY: Why?

RAY: Because of the complicated
nature of the transactions that
were involved.

O'REILLY: All right.

RAY: And one of the more difficult
aspects of the investigation was
trying to unwind all of the various...

O'REILLY: But you believe that they did take money
for themselves out of it?
You just don't know how much?

RAY: That's correct.

O'REILLY: OK, now, the billing records.

RAY: Yes.

O'REILLY: In the White House, that disappeared for 18
months. OK, and then
they all of a sudden popped up. And you had testimony
that Hillary Clinton
was seen with those billing records. Correct?

RAY: We had testimony. That's correct.

O'REILLY: All right. Now how much did she bill? Did
you look at the billing
records? How much did she bill in the case?

RAY: I want to be clear with regard to the billing
records. We had testimony
that a jury, based upon circumstantial evidence,
might have been able to
include with the billing records. Based upon
circumstances...

O'REILLY: OK, but I don't care about that. I mean,
you're not taking it to court.
So I'm not trying it on here. How much did Hillary
Clinton bill?

RAY: She billed a substantial amount based upon at
least 14 different
entries.

O'REILLY: How much?

RAY: For her time.

O'REILLY: How much?

RAY: Well, I mean, that's not really important.

O'REILLY: Why can't you tell me?

RAY: That's reflected in the final report.

O'REILLY: Well, tell me. I can't read it all the
time. Come on, all the people
watching, you can't tell us how much money she
billed?

RAY: It depends on, again, looking through...

O'REILLY: Give me a ballpark figure.

RAY: Each of the 14 entries to go through and
actually look and see, based
upon the hourly rate...

O'REILLY: You know the ballpark figure. What did she
make? $50,000?
$30,000?

RAY: I don't recall what the exact figure was. What
we do know is that it was
contrary to testimony that she had given
previously...

O'REILLY: That she didn't make any money?

RAY: No, that she didn't do any work with regard to
that matter.

O'REILLY: Right, well, it's the same thing. If you
don't do any work, you don't
make any money. So you're not going to tell me how
much money she
made?

RAY: That was -- I can tell you that it's reflected
in the report.

O'REILLY: OK, but I can't read the report and
neither can them. I mean, we
just...

RAY: I think the more important part, though, with
regard to the issue is the
question of whether or not work had been or had not
been done.

O'REILLY: And it had been done. And she said it
hadn't been done.

RAY: Right. And the work that had been done in
instances where...

O'REILLY: All right. Is there any other factual...

RAY: ...was used to conceal other activity.

O'REILLY: Is there any other factual -- you say that
the First Lady gave
factually inaccurate testimony. Is that it? Did she
just lie about the billing? Is
there any other factually inaccurate testimony that
she gave?

RAY: That testimony was of great concern to us.

O'REILLY: Sure. Obviously.

RAY: Because those entries reflected work done on
certain legal agreements
that were used to conceal unlawful activity. The
question was, is even if a
lawyer had engaged in such an activity and prepared
those documents, were
we able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
person who did the
legal work, knowingly did so in an effort to conceal
illegal activities?

O'REILLY: Yeah, you couldn't prove that?

RAY: And we were not able to prove that.

O'REILLY: Yes, because she could say, look, they
told me something. And
how do I know that they were telling me bogus stuff?
But you still won't me
how much money she made.

RAY: That's the gist of it.

O'REILLY: I mean, I know what the gist of it is. I
don't know why you won't tell
me how much money she made. I don't want to be a
pain in the neck to you,
but come on. We paid your salary for two years. You
can't tell me how much
money she made off this bank?

O'REILLY: The purpose was for Hillary Clinton to make
money. That's why
she wanted to do it. They wanted to make money,
right? Am I wrong on that?

RAY: Well, that's correct. But the issue really was,
and -- look, no spin. The
issue really was what was accomplished as a result of
that work having
been done? And what we found was, as a factual
matter, that the purpose of
that work was to conceal unlawful activity. It was
not, however, a
circumstance where we could show that that was a
knowing purpose.

O'REILLY: Yeah, she did it on purpose. We don't
know. But the billing
records went missing for 18 months. That was pretty
curious, wasn't it?

Cherri, you spend way too much time searching the net for left leaning
articles. The Ray report has been all over the news.

Peter, I find Cherri's article of no interest; I was just balancing it
with another article of no interest that Cherri would never post.
Cherri just continues to bash Enron because she thinks they tie to
Bush. She has failed in coming up with the smoking gun. She also
refuses to believe that there are any smoking guns around Clinton.